Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze (RH) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) applicable to the Nelson Lime Plant. In response to a request for reconsideration from the plant's owner, Lhoist North America of Arizona, Inc. (LNA), we propose to replace the control technology demonstration requirements for nitrogen oxides (NO_X) applicable to Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant with a series of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Lastly, we are proposing a correction in the regulatory language of the final rule where a table listing the pollution emission limits for NO_X and sulfur dioxide (SO₂) at each kiln was misprinted. We are seeking comment on each of these proposed actions.

DATES:

Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2015. Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before January 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal, request a public hearing, or submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at webb.thomas@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Information

II. Background

III. FIP Revision for Nelson Lime Plant

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

• The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
• The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
• The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.
• The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.
• The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.

• The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business Information.
• The initials CEMS mean or refer to continuous emission monitoring system or systems.
• The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
• The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.
• The initials LNA mean or refer to LNA North America of Arizona, Inc.
• The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British thermal units.
• The initials NO _X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
• The initials RH mean or refer to regional haze.
• The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze Rule.
• The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
• The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic reduction.
• The initials SO ₂ mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

B. Docket

The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning Office of the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding Federal holidays.

C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA

Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2015. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861, by one of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov.
• Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb).
• Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public docket without change. We may make comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov,, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or that is otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov,, we will include your email address as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

D. Submitting Confidential Business Information

Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or by email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim as CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. We will not disclose information so marked except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline.

F. Public Hearings

If anyone contacts EPA by January 28, 2015 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb at (415) 947-4139 or at webb.thomas@epa.gov to request a hearing or to determine if a hearing will be held.

II. Background

A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas in section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.” It also directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate best available retrofit technology (BART) controls. These sources are referred to as “BART-eligible” sources. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area. We promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) in 1999, which requires states to develop and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas by reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to conduct BART determinations for BART-eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.

B. History of FIP BART Determination

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze SIP to EPA on February 28, 2011. EPA promulgated two final rules approving in part and disapproving in part the Arizona RH SIP. The first final rule addressed the State's BART determinations for three power plants (Apache, Cholla, and Coronado). The second final rule, which addressed the remaining elements of the Arizona RH SIP, included our disapproval of the State's determination that the Nelson Lime Plant was not subject to BART.

In a third final rule, EPA found that the Nelson Lime Plant was subject to BART and made a BART determination for the plant, as part of the Arizona RH FIP. EPA set BART emission limits for NO_X at the Nelson Lime Plant of 3.80 lb/ton of limestone product for Kiln 1 and 2.61 lb/ton of limestone product for Kiln 2 based on a 12-month rolling average; and a combined limit for Kilns 1 and 2 of 3.27 tons of NO_X/day on a 30-day rolling average. These limits are consistent with the use of SNCR control technology and represent a 50 percent reduction from baseline emission rates. The FIP also included monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, and established a compliance deadline for the final NO_X emission limits of September 3, 2017, which is three years from the publication date of the final rule. Finally, we received certain comments alleging that an SNCR control efficiency of 50 percent was unsupported, and that SNCR was capable of achieving control efficiency as high as 80 percent. In responses to these comments in our final rule, we noted that the commenters were unable to provide information indicating that an SNCR control efficiency better than 50 percent was achievable at a lime kiln. As a result, our final rule established NO_X emission limits consistent with an SNCR control efficiency of 50 percent. However, in response to these comments, as well as the lack of data regarding the performance of SNCR on lime kilns, the final rule included a series of control technology demonstration requirements for Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 to ensure the optimization of the SNCR systems installed at the Nelson Lime Plant.

C. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay

LNA submitted a petition to EPA on October 31, 2014, seeking administrative reconsideration and a partial stay of the final rule under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). Specifically, LNA requested that EPA eliminate the control technology demonstration requirements for the Nelson Lime Plant. In an attachment to the petition, LNA provided additional data regarding SNCR performance at lime kilns located at another LNA facility, the O'Neal Lime Plant in Calera, Alabama. In the petition, LNA also requested a stay if EPA did not take action prior to December 31, 2014. LNA requested a stay on the grounds that the control technology demonstration requirements would not provide sufficient time to meet the SO₂ and NO_X BART emission limits. LNA asserted that the time needed to implement the demonstration requirements, in particular the requirement to collect six months of uncontrolled NO_X emission data, would delay the critical path schedule for SNCR installation beyond the compliance date. EPA sent a letter to LNA on November 20, 2014, granting reconsideration of the optimization protocol requirements pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). Today's notice of proposed rulemaking constitutes EPA's proposed action on the reconsideration.

III. FIP Revision for Nelson Lime Plant

A. Summary of FIP Revision

This proposed rule consists of several components: removal of the control technology demonstration requirements, revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and an error correction to a table in our September 3, 2014, final rule. This proposed rule does not change any of the emission limits, compliance deadlines, or the compliance determination methods established in the final rule.

B. EPA's Evaluation of Eliminating Control Technology Demonstration Requirements

EPA is proposing to remove the control technology demonstration requirements from the final rule based on information provided in LNA's petition for reconsideration. In particular, in a letter dated October 2, 2014, and enclosed with the petition, LNA provided new data concerning operation of SNCR at another of its facilities, the O'Neal Lime Plant. The O'Neal Lime Plant originally consisted of Kiln 1, but was later expanded through the construction of Kiln 2. In order for the construction of Kiln 2 not to trigger major new source review for NO_X emissions, LNA elected to install SNCR on both Kilns 1 and 2 to maintain NO_X emissions below thresholds for major new source review. LNA provided information comparing the physical design of the two kilns at the O'Neal Lime Plant with the two kilns at the Nelson Lime Plant. LNA indicated that although the two O'Neal kilns are not identical to the Nelson kilns, O'Neal Kiln 1 is more similar in design to the Nelson kilns than O'Neal Kiln 2. We consider this comparison reasonable. Of the two O'Neal kilns, Kiln 1 is closer in age, physical dimensions, lime production rate, and fuel efficiency to the Nelson kilns than Kiln 2.

The remainder of the October 2, 2014, letter summarizes NO_X emission data from specific days of operation at O'Neal Kiln 1 to evaluate the SNCR control efficiency of the kiln. Evaluating the control efficiency involves comparing uncontrolled emission rates with controlled emission rates from Kiln 1. However, uncontrolled NO_X emission data for the O'Neal plant are limited, because the facility did not operate with a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for NO_X prior to installing SNCR. As a result, uncontrolled NO_X emission data are limited to those periods of time following SNCR installation during which the SNCR system did not operate. LNA provided emission data from six days during which the SNCR did not operate to represent uncontrolled NO_X emission rates. NO_X emission data from those periods corresponding to hours of SNCR operation were also included as a representation of controlled NO_X emission rates. Based on this analysis, the SNCR control efficiency of O'Neal Kiln 1 varied from 42 to 61 percent.

This range of control efficiency represents SNCR performance over relatively short-term periods of less than 24 hours. For example, the highest observed control efficiency (61 percent) corresponds to a period ending on December 1, 2011, and consists of a comparison of six hours of uncontrolled emissions with eight hours of controlled emissions. As noted in the final rule in regard to control efficiencies for dry sorbent injection, we do not consider the upper range of short-term control efficiencies necessarily to be sustainable over longer periods, such as on an annual average basis. Therefore, while the emission data provided by LNA indicate that a 61 percent SNCR control efficiency was achievable over short term periods (lasting several hours), we do not necessarily consider 61 percent control efficiency to be achievable over longer averaging periods, such as an annual average or 30-day average. For cement kilns, a source category similar to lime kilns, the highest short-term emission rates can be as much as 25-50 percent greater than the highest annual average or 30-day average emission rates. As a result, given the short-term nature of the emission data indicating a maximum 61 percent SNCR control efficiency, we consider the use of a 50 percent control efficiency on a longer annual average basis to be reasonable for the Nelson kilns.

Accordingly, we propose to find that the data from the O'Neal kilns are sufficient to establish that an SNCR control efficiency of 50 percent is appropriate for the Nelson kilns for purposes of BART. While we still consider it necessary to ensure that the SNCR system be optimized, we do not consider it necessary for LNA to adhere to the relatively detailed and prescribed procedures contained in the control technology demonstration requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to remove the control technology demonstration requirements included in the final rule, and, as described below, are proposing requirements that will require LNA to report similar information in a less prescribed manner.

C. Revised Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

We are proposing several additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including a summary of SNCR design and a summary of SNCR debugging and process improvement activities, to replace the control technology demonstration requirements in the FIP for Nelson Lime Plant. As described in III.B above, we consider it necessary to include provisions for SNCR optimization. Given the NO_X emission data provided by LNA from the O'Neal Plant indicating that 50 percent SNCR control efficiency has been achieved at a lime kiln, we do not consider it necessary for optimization measures to be as prescriptive and detailed as established in our September 4, 2014, final rule. Specifically, we propose to require LNA to submit a summary of the SNCR design prior to commencing construction of the ammonia injection system at Kilns 1 and 2, including information regarding reagent type, locations selected for reagent injection, reagent injection rate, equipment arrangement, and kiln characteristics. We also propose to require LNA to submit a summary of SNCR debugging and process improvement activities, including a description of each process adjustment performed on the SNCR system, a discussion of whether the adjustment affected the NO_X emission rate, a description of the range over which the adjustment was examined, and a discussion of how the adjustment will be reflected or accounted for in kiln operating practices.

D. Error Correction

We are proposing a minor correction to a table printed in our September 3, 2014, final rule at 79 FR 52480. The table, which is codified at 40 CFR 52.145(i)(3)(i) and lists NO_X and SO₂ limits for the Nelson Plant Kilns, appears with incorrect column labels due to a misprint in the Federal Register. The table appears with the correct labels in the proposed regulatory text that follows this proposed rule.

E. Non-interference With Applicable Requirements

The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Today's proposed revisions would not affect any applicable requirements of the CAA because they would not alter the amount or timing of emission reductions from the Nelson Lime Plant. In particular, the proposed replacement of the control technology demonstration requirements with a series of recordkeeping and reporting requirements would not alter any of the applicable emission limitations, compliance determination methodologies, or compliance deadlines. Therefore, we propose to find that these revisions would comply with CAA section 110(l).

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

For the reasons described above, EPA proposes to revise the Arizona Regional Haze FIP to eliminate the control technology demonstration requirements at the Nelson Lime Plant and replace them with additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This revision would constitute our action on LNA's Petition for Reconsideration of the FIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This proposed rule applies to only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote 1, a firm is small if it is in NAICS 327410 (lime manufacturing) and the concern and its affiliates have no more than 500 employees. LNA is affiliated with the LNA Group, which has more than 5,500 employees. Therefore, LNA is not a small business.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed action addresses regional haze and visibility protection.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low- income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not change the level of environmental protection for any affected populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

• Environmental protection
• Air pollution control
• Nitrogen oxides
• Particulate matter
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Sulfur dioxide
• Visibility Incorporation by Reference

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Amend § 52.145 by:

a. Revising paragraph (i); and

b. Removing Appendix B to § 52.145—Lime Kiln Control Technology Demonstration Requirements.

The revision reads as follows: